21

I have read that the first version of Unix was created for the PDP-7, and later versions were created for the PDP-11.

But I am wondering, what was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?

user12162
  • 219
  • 2
  • 3
  • 15
    This question is at least as blurry as the definition what a microcomputer is - isn't it? – Raffzahn Mar 29 '19 at 11:55
  • 4
    Define "microcomputer". The first 64K RAM desktop with a framebuffer running UNIX was Terak in 1976 or 1977. – Leo B. Mar 29 '19 at 20:48
  • 3
    Define "Unix". Linux, for example, famously isn't Unix because it has never been certified as meeting the specification. – Mark Mar 29 '19 at 21:39
  • 2
    @Mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX – Leo B. Mar 30 '19 at 00:47
  • 2
    @Mark I beg to differ Is there a Linux distro that's UNIX certified?, https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/393475/which-gnu-linux-distributions-if-any-are-posix-certified – phuclv Mar 30 '19 at 05:24
  • @phuclv So that is just one of how many linux distros? – Solar Mike Mar 31 '19 at 09:54
  • 4
    @SolarMike Mark said "it has never been certified as meeting the specification" and I proved that many distros have been certified as meeting the specification. What's wrong? Have you read the comment? In fact it's not one but two – phuclv Mar 31 '19 at 09:55
  • @Raffzahn : wasn't it something like a minicomputer is something which fits into a room, and a microcomputer is something which fits on a table? – vsz Mar 31 '19 at 22:41
  • @vsz Not realy, it at all, it would be a mainframe that fills a room. Minis are minis because they no longer do so - they even fit on a desk. Micros are micros because they use a micro-processor. – Raffzahn Mar 31 '19 at 23:59
  • @Raffzahn : It then might have originated either as a joke, or earlier than I thought... the earliest mainframes definitely didn't fit into a single room. – vsz Apr 01 '19 at 04:01
  • 2
    @vsz Or maybe people falling into the usual trap of making up 'logic' explanations afterwarts, when the origin was rather evolutionary? In the beginning there was just 'Computer' and 'Mainframe' to name exactly that the main fraim of the whole set up, the CPU itself. Computers had sizes from gym halls down to bath rooms. At some point companies build explicit more compact computers, and distinguished them as 'Mini' because they where extrem small (lhess tan a rack). And then came the Micro ... well, I guess that would be worth a question in itself - which would be borderline as well :( – Raffzahn Apr 01 '19 at 09:40
  • In the 1966 handbook DEC referred to the PDP-8 as "small-scale" later handbooks used the title "Small Computer Handbook". The later PDP-11/20 in the 1970 handbook describes itself as a manufacturer of "small-scale computers". The popular press in the early 1970s then describes these as mincomputers. Afterwards these earlier systems are labelled 'minicomputers'. – PDP11 Sep 27 '23 at 02:43
  • I would have sworn I was using Unixware on a PC in the late 1980's, but Wikipedia says it didn't exist until 1991. It was a progression from AT&T Unix, as true Unix as you could get. – Mark Ransom Sep 28 '23 at 02:41

6 Answers6

35

In 1981, Microsoft released Xenix which could run on the x86, the 68000, and others. As you know, Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s. So this was perhaps the first unix, or at least among the first commercial unices, to be intended to run on high-end micros.

But maybe, the term "micro" isn't so useful. After all, Version 6 UNIX from 1975 was written in C and ran blithely on the PDP-11. The PDP-11 architecture was later implemented on a microchip; A J-11 or something like that would have run V6 just as happily. And in Soviet Russia, V6 was indeed modified to run on local PDP-11-compatible microcomputers. It's arguable whether MNOS and V6 are the same UNIX; if they are, then it predates Microsoft's offering by around five years.

BYTE magazine, October 1983 talks about early unices on microcomputers

Omar and Lorraine
  • 38,883
  • 14
  • 134
  • 274
  • 6
    I agree this doesn’t deserve its downvote. The release date for Xenix is somewhat inaccurate (it was announced in 1980, but only shipped in 1981, although there are claims of a 3Com release in 1980) but that’s not all that important! – Stephen Kitt Mar 29 '19 at 12:24
  • 3
    I always think it is fun to remind Unix bigots/Microsoft haters to remember that for several years Microsoft's Xenix had more systems out there than any other Unix! – davidbak Mar 29 '19 at 17:09
  • 2
    "Microsoft targets microcomputers above other markets; that was especially true in the 80s." This sounds like you're saying this was more true in the 80's than it is now, which is definitely incorrect, no? Or, do you mean it was especially true in the 80's compared to the 70's? – DarthFennec Mar 29 '19 at 20:14
  • 1
    @Darth well now they do phones and servers, don't they. In the past, their BASIC was their bread and butter. That's what I think, though I could be wrong. I never cared that much about them. – Omar and Lorraine Mar 29 '19 at 20:40
  • 3
    I was under the impression that smartphones and modern servers are microcomputers. There's not much difference internally between a phone and a laptop, or a server and a desktop. Or am I misunderstanding what a microcomputer is? – DarthFennec Mar 29 '19 at 21:00
  • 2
    Eh, it's a matter of what definition of "micro" you like I guess – Omar and Lorraine Mar 29 '19 at 21:04
  • 1
    @DarthFennec Well, as Wilson already mentioned, it's all about the definition. So if phones are microcomputers, then we need to include dish washers as well - after all, I wouldn't be surprised if nowadays some run an embedded Linux :)) – Raffzahn Mar 30 '19 at 22:09
  • 1
    @davidbak [citation needed] – Omar and Lorraine Apr 01 '19 at 15:21
  • 1
    @Raffzahn Fair. I tend to think of a microcomputer as any sort of general-purpose computer that has all the CPU functionality on the same die. That and the fact that they were meant for personal home use (and the reduction in size and price) is what set them apart from minis initially, from my knowledge. But I guess it's really a very vague classification system in any case. – DarthFennec Apr 01 '19 at 16:51
  • 1
    "The term is most commonly associated with the first wave of all-in-one 8-bit home computers and small business microcomputers (such as the Apple II, Commodore 64, BBC Micro, and TRS 80). Although... an increasingly diverse range of modern microprocessor-based devices fit the definition of "microcomputer", they are no longer referred to as such in everyday speech." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcomputer – Bruce Abbott Apr 01 '19 at 19:17
  • But the J-11 specifically was released in 1983, and Wikipedia says MNOS was also released in 1983; regardless of whether "MNOS = v6" or not (how can it, you said yourself "modified"), Unix couldn't have been run on a micro PDP-11 before 1981 unless there were micro PDP-11s prior to 1981, which you haven't given evidence of. – Jonathan Cast Sep 26 '23 at 22:18
  • @Johnathan, the Unix of 1975 will happily run on a later (micro) PDP-11. The question does not exclude this kind of thing, which means it boils down to "any Unix". Or, there is nothing special about micros that warrants any minimum Unix version. – Omar and Lorraine Sep 27 '23 at 03:14
17

It all comes down to the definition of micro. After all, already the PDP-11/03, aka LSI-11, of 1975, is based on a micro chipset. That's less than a year after Unix became known outside AT&T. An 'official' AT&T port to the LSI-11 was published in 1978. Not much later, the PDP-11/24 (1979) used the F11 chips follow ups where J11 and T11 (single chip PDP). Clearly micros (*1).

When it comes to more common (*2) CPUs, Intel's 8086 got its first port, by AT&T in 1978, shortly followed by Microsoft's XENIX, based on the AT&T port (*3).

*1 - Or do the case form make the difference? Then I must point to some 6502, Z80 or even 2650 based systems in 19"

*2 - Not that I would call the LSI-11 uncommon

*3 - Sans the custom MMU that is.

Raffzahn
  • 222,541
  • 22
  • 631
  • 918
  • 1
    Wow, I had read the porting paper a while ago and had completely forgotten about the AT&T 8086 port! Was Xenix 8086 really based on that though? I thought Microsoft had started with PDP-11 Xenix, then ported it to the Z8001 and only after that to the 8086 (with help from SCO). – Stephen Kitt Mar 29 '19 at 12:20
  • @StephenKitt Not sure. It's the way I learned about it back in the 1980s - but I never verified it, so it may be unfounded coffee machine talk. Then again, isn't the AT&T itself based on the PDP-11 code? Interesting maybe in addition is that the Siemens PC-MX, a 8086 based Xenix (Sinix) system, had a custom MMU, somewhat like the AT&T one - on a ..lets say intel inspired ... CPU board. Similar for the later 80186 based PC-X workstation. – Raffzahn Mar 29 '19 at 12:30
  • 1
    Raffzahn, What did you mean in Note *1? Are you saying there were Unix systems for 6502 and z80? Or that there were microcomputers based on these 8-bit CPUs? I'm not challenging your answer, I just don't understand this note. – RichF Mar 29 '19 at 15:48
  • @RichF No, *1 is related to what qualifies a microcomputer. It's meant to mark that the form factor can't be used as reasoning. – Raffzahn Mar 29 '19 at 17:46
  • There is the assumption that a microprocessor describes the CPU implementation as a single chip and by definition a microcomputer is restricted to these devices. The terms mainframe computer, minicomputer and microcomputer are an attempt to define a system's physical characteristics as well as an idication of its processor implementation. Catch is there is not universal concensus of this single chip definition with early multi-chip implementations like the LSI-11, National Semiconductor IMP-16 also described as microprocessors. – PDP11 Sep 27 '23 at 03:22
  • @PDP11 Well, even Mainframes are known to have their CPU as single chip implementation. The point is that a rack mount case alone doesn't dequalify something being a micro. – Raffzahn Sep 27 '23 at 09:35
  • @PDP11: I've read scanned articles about "microcomputers" which predated the 4004, and used some kind of delay line for storage (I don't remember whether it was a mechanical delay line or one of the solid state ones that had been developed in the 1960s). – supercat Sep 27 '23 at 22:03
14

According to the chronology of personal computers, the first micro-computer running Unix was “the Onyx C8002 microcomputer. It features a Zilog Z8000 microprocessor, 256 kB RAM, tape backup, hard disk, serial ports for eight users, and running UNIX, for US$20,000.” It was introduced in June 1980. (The quote is inaccurate in at least one respect: the C8002, as its name suggests, used a Zilog Z8002 CPU — thanks Raffzahn!)

This was followed shortly by Xenix, Microsoft’s licensed port of Unix, which first shipped in January 1981 on a Z8001-based Central Data Corporation system (not to be confused with the more famous Control Data Corporation). 8086 systems running Xenix started shipping in 1982. Xenix was also available on PDP-11 computers (see the OEM list for details), and there were micro-computer-class PDP-11 systems, including DEC’s own Professional range which was available with 2.9BSD.

Stephen Kitt
  • 121,835
  • 17
  • 505
  • 462
  • I do not get it. How could 256kb RAM brick of metal cost 20k? It is new, super silicon ninja tech, but why it was used so it could cost 20k? – Croll Mar 29 '19 at 12:27
  • 7
    Erm, @Croll, you did note, that this is the price for the whole system, including CPU, I/O, (hard) disks, tape and so on? 20k doesn't sound much to me for a 16 bit multi user system in 1980 - rather resonable I say. – Raffzahn Mar 29 '19 at 12:37
  • 1
    Terak was not "personal" enough? – Leo B. Mar 30 '19 at 01:11
  • 1
    @Leo you’d have to ask Ken Polsson ;-). Was it “micro” enough? – Stephen Kitt Mar 30 '19 at 08:43
  • From Wikipedia it seems that Z8000 was a family including (at least) two members - Z8001 with 24 MB addressable memory and Z8002 with 64 KB. So calling this processor Z8000 or Z8002 is both correct. – Bulat Mar 31 '19 at 19:01
8

With the other answers, it is obvious the Sun-1 was not the first. However, due to Sun Microsystem's relevance in the microcomputing world, I think this May, 1982 entry is worth mentioning here. The system was based on a 68000 CPU along with a Sun-designed MMU. (Apparently the Motorola MMU at the time was not sufficiently reliable.)

  1. Sun-1, 1982, 68000, Sun MMU
  2. Sun-2, 1983, 68010, Sun MMU
  3. Sun-3, 1985, 68020, Sun MMU, Motorola fp math coprocessor
  4. Sun-3x, 1989, 68030, inherent MMU, Motorola fp math, system coincident with SparcStation 1

No more 680x0 models past that, and later Sun models would either use the Sparc or x86 CPUs (both 32-bit and later 64-bit).

Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
  • 2,262
  • 1
  • 14
  • 25
RichF
  • 9,006
  • 4
  • 29
  • 55
  • 3
    Why did Intel not use Motorola chips when they asked Microsoft to provide a disk operating system for their new microcomputer... We'd have an 8 core 68080 ... sane assembler ... the world would be a better place ;-). – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 29 '19 at 18:13
  • 3
    @PeterA.Schneider: If you mean IBM, rather than Intel, using the 68000 was seriously considered fir the IBM PC. It wasn't done largely because the 8088 could use cheap 8-bit peripheral chips: remember that the IBM PC was not intended to become a dominant computer architecture at all. – John Dallman Mar 29 '19 at 18:47
  • 1
    @JohnDallman IBM indeed, sorry. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 29 '19 at 18:56
  • 2
    I don't think there was actually anything wrong with the Motorola MMU other than it was slow. This made it unpopular, HP also created their own MMU for their 68000 based workstations. The problem was with the 68000 CPU itself, a design flaw meant it couldn't reliably restart execution after a page fault. This meant that it wasn't possible to implement virtual memory, but it was possible to use the MMU to implement process isolation. VM support had to wait until the Sun-2 which used a 68010 which fixed the 68000 flaw. –  Mar 31 '19 at 03:01
  • @RossRidge Thank you for the info. Do you know why Sun stuck with their proprietary MMU until the 68030? My guess would be momentum. They were used to it and had no compelling reason to change. – RichF Mar 31 '19 at 03:05
  • I don't think there was any alternative that was better until the 68030's builtin MMU. –  Mar 31 '19 at 07:22
  • @RichF Did 68000/010 had accompanying MMU chips at all? Wikipedia says only about 68851 for 68020. Actually, development of MMU and multi-cpu boards was an entire business of those "workstation-on-microcpu" manufacturers – Bulat Mar 31 '19 at 19:04
  • @Bulat The MC68451 was designed for the 68000 and 68010. Due to the bug mentioned by Ross Ridge, the 68000 had problems with it, so it was primarily considered a 68010 peripheral. – RichF Mar 31 '19 at 22:07
  • PowerPC? You mean x86? – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen Apr 01 '19 at 01:31
  • @ThorbjørnRavnAndersen ack, yes. I remembered wrong. Thanks for letting me know, and I corrected the answer. – RichF Apr 01 '19 at 01:58
  • The other reason for using the 68K was that in flat addressing mode, it could access up to 4Gb. This made it easy for the OS writers. The X86 only introduced 32-bit flat addressing in 1985: about 6 years after the 68K. – cup Jul 02 '20 at 08:41
7

As mentioned, the PDP-11/03 was the first microprocessor-based model in the PDP-11 range. In 1977, Heinz Lycklama wrote a paper describing LSI-UNIX (LSX for short) 'UNIX on a Microprocessor': https://www.heinzlycklama.com/docs/bstj57-6-2087.pdf

The LSX binaries were found and after a bit of surgery was able to be run: https://unixhistory.livejournal.com/6278.html?nojs=1

You can download the disk images and run it on simh nowadays. There was a video on Youtube a few years back of a PDP-11/03 with an RX01 booting LSX off two floppies, it was pretty slow.

1944GPW
  • 111
  • 1
  • 3
7

In the early 1980s, Torch Unix was available for the BBC Micro.

The catch was that you had to have the Torch 68000 second processor and hard drive. This meant that it fell between two stools. It was far too expensive for use by the usual BBC Micro hobbyists and office/professional users found it too unusual to compete with more mainstream offerings from other manufacturers. So it soon died out.

I did use this at work for a short time. I remember it had to be installed onto the hard drive from 50 5.25" floppies, this took me pretty much an entire working day.

GeeGee
  • 171
  • 6
  • I remember seeing Torch Unix running at one of the Acorn User shows at Alexandra Palace. As you say, too weird to survive - unfortunately. – Chenmunka Apr 03 '19 at 09:16
  • Reminds me of my first Unix-like OS install: Slackware 3 on a386 PC, installed using about the same number of 3.5" disks... but I didn't have that many available, nor Internet access at home, so I spent days running around between home & university filling up floppies to take home later. :) – occipita Jul 03 '20 at 06:27